Political Joke Thread-Cartoons-Memes

Welcome to the Precious Metals Bug Forums

Welcome to the PMBug forums - a community supported watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more.

Register a free account to join the discussions. When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including access to market data/charts and additional members only rooms (including one for trade/barter with the community).

We have lots of unqualified politicians, why lie about it? And considering the corruption of "qualified " politicians, is it really an advantage?
 
Fatrat said:
We have lots of unqualified politicians, why lie about it? And considering the corruption of "qualified " politicians, is it really an advantage?
Click to expand...



America's first "politicians" were professional men, business owners, and landowners. They stepped away from their businesses to serve the country with the expectation that they would return to their lives as soon as their work was done.


The idea of having "professional politicians" and wealthy political family dynasties is precisely why we find ourselves in the fix we are in.
 
...TERM LIMITS.

Constitutionally mandated, so that the dozen or so New Democrat Stuporemes cannot overturn it, because it interferes with their plans for chaos and impoverishment of the masses.
 
Casey Jones said:
...TERM LIMITS.

Constitutionally mandated, so that the dozen or so New Democrat Stuporemes cannot overturn it, because it interferes with their plans for chaos and impoverishment of the masses.
Click to expand...
Problem is, with those you also prematurely get rid of any good ones too.

Also, with term limits for the politicians, we'll need something similar for all the bureaucrats in all the agencies, too.

However, in the end term limits, "officially", won't ever happen.

Why?

Because it would require that those that most benefit from there not being term limits, to be the one's to push for and ratify such an Amendment.

Expecting them to want (and work towards) meaningful term limits is like expecting to see Elvis riding a pink unicorn across your front yard and being struck by lightning.

Ain't happenin'.

You'd literally need lynch mobs by the millions marching on DC just to get their attention on the matter.
 
Joe King said:
Problem is, with those you also prematurely get rid of any good ones too.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as the Indespensible Man.

Or there isn't, in a republic. In a monarchy or dictatorship...yeah, to the extent you want to continue the Status Quo.

A system run by IDEAS should be, must be, easily able to transfer the reigns of power.

If no one else can do it...then it's not ideas and not principles, but cultism and preservation of the Status Quo. Usually for selfish and probably-illegal reasons.
 
It is gonna happen.

It can happen in a legal, organized, structured way - which I agree, is highly unlikely; or it can happen all at once. As in collapse and overthrow.

That IS likely, and becoming MOAR likely. You see the crypto-Marxists making like Pied Pipers, drawing out the kids who know nothing about history except WE-BEE-RAY-CYST.

So. The next Generational Cycle is gonna be eighty years of what the USSR went through. That will probably herald China's own Fourth Turning - their Maoist period is approaching 80 years, too.

They'll probably jettison all the genuflecting to Maoist and Marxist principles. Will they become republicans? Not likely. There's no tradition of self-government in Asia; and that may well be because of the Asian mindset. They'll be totalitarian but not collectivist.

And they'll stop caring about stealing our industries. Because we'll have no money and no wealth, any more than there was in the USSR in the 1930s.
 
Casey Jones said:
There is no such thing as the Indispensable Man.
Click to expand...
Not saying anyone is indispensable, just that if there are any "good ones", it'd be a shame to force them out. Esp if they just get replaced by someone worse.


Another angle on this is, you should have the Right to vote for whoever you want as your rep.

Because the way it seems is that everyone dislikes everyone else's rep more than they dislike their own.
.....and I shouldn't get to tell you who you can have as a rep.
 
Joe King said:
Not saying anyone is indispensable, just that if there are any "good ones", it'd be a shame to force them out. Esp if they just get replaced by someone worse.
Click to expand...
Not "forced out." Just disqualified from the actual office.

No reason that person couldn't be on staff, or a department head. Just not in the decision-making position.
 
Joe King said:
Another angle on this is, you should have the Right to vote for whoever you want as your rep.
Click to expand...
I want King Charles III as my Representative!

WHY can I not vote for him? Or, moar realistically, why can't he be allowed to ACCEPT our Tory votes?



Rhetorical, of course. You can vote for anyone you wish, but to accept the post - and the formal nomination to be on the ballot, that person need be ELIGIBLE.

That means age qualifications; not a felon; a US citizen (not that that means anything, these days) and, with Term Limits, not in conflict with THAT qualification.
 
^^^
Nothing new under the sun.

The Dumbos have always flirted with the Marxists. There were a number in Roosevelt's Cabinet; and there was an aggressive Communist movement in the 1930s, making loose alliances with the urban Dumbocrat political machines.

The reason the Dumbos began reflexively denouncing Communism was a result of conservatives' anti-Communist legislation in the 1940s-50s, as well as the lead-up before that. They were sensitive, and they were guilty. So like a lying little kid caught with his fingers in the cookie jar, they started automatically denying and denouncing.

Now that period is finally over; the mask is removed.
 
What was Norman Thomas's stance on war?


AI Overview


Norman Thomas was an ardent Christian pacifist and socialist who opposed United States involvement in all major 20th-century conflicts, including World War I, World War II, and the Vietnam War. He consistently viewed war as a threat to democracy, advocating instead for structural social change.
Encyclopedia Britannica +3

Read more about his lifelong anti-war activism in his Britannica Biography.

His stance shifted across specific eras:

    • World War I: His opposition to the "imperialist" conflict solidified his pacifist beliefs and spurred him to join the American Socialist Party. He later helped co-found the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to fiercely defend civil liberties and conscientious objectors during the war.
      Encyclopedia Britannica +3
    • World War II:
      He strongly opposed U.S. entry and co-founded the Keep America Out of War Committee. However, he reluctantly sided with interventionists in 1942, fearing the global threat of a fascist victory. Despite his non-interventionist past, he was one of the few prominent figures who vociferously fought against the forced relocation and incarceration of Japanese Americans.

      Wikipedia +4
    • Post-War and Vietnam: Throughout the Cold War, he denounced rearmament. He also helped found SANE (the National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy
    • In short, a great guy...
 

Attachments

  • 1784564436982.png
    538 bytes · Views: 0
  • 1784564436997.png
    465 bytes · Views: 0
  • 1784564437010.png
    588 bytes · Views: 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…